Block PM from Users You Don't Follow?

[ChB 18,532]

Would it be possible to give users the option to only receive PM's from users they follow? This would save some people from having to deal with unsolicited PMs from people they don't know, and having to delete the PM or block the user each and every time. 

Thanks,

ChB

[Will Guide 21,325]

@ChB

When you chose to ignore a user, you can choose multiple of these choices to blocks:

Posts

Messages

Signature

Mentions.

So just chose all but the message box. And you'll only get messages from the affected user. The ignored content will be hidden from you unless you hit "show post".

Does that help?

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by WiiGuy2014

[ChB 18,532]

1 hour ago, WiiGuy2014 said:

@ChB

When you chose to ignore a user, you can choose multiple of these choices to blocks:

Posts

Messages

Signature

Mentions.

So just chose all but the message box. And you'll only get messages from the affected user. The ignored content will be hidden from you unless you hit "show post".

Does that help?

 

No, because I'm talking about having the option to prevent random users from sending unsolicited PMs to you, in the first place. I can block specific users manually, yes, but that's merely putting on a band-aid, after the damage is done. More users will register and come to your profile, and what I'm suggesting is that we give people the ability to not receive PMs from any user, unless they are following that user.

Hope that make sense. I'm not always the best at clarity. 

[ShadOBabe 18,984]

Is there a specific reason you don’t want anyone to talk to you?

[ChB 18,532]

8 minutes ago, ShadOBabe said:

Is there a specific reason you don’t want anyone to talk to you?

I don't mind receiving random PMs myself, but it's a concern to some of my friends here. 

They don't like receiving random PMs from people they don't know and are not on their "Following" list. 

[Jeric 46,835]

It's generally not a horrible concept as long as what you are proposing isn't the default setting. Of course, any modifications would allow staff to be able to override any block by necessity (that's what the system currently does). 

[ChB 18,532]

2 minutes ago, Jeric said:

It's generally not a horrible concept as long as what you are proposing isn't the default setting. Of course, any modifications would allow staff to be able to override any block by necessity (that's what the system currently does). 

Yeah, not a default setting, just an optional thing.

[Fhaolan 4,468]

Hrmmm. That kind of thing doesn't appear to be in the stock IP.B software, and I can't find an existing add-on that does it. However, I have seen other forums (on other software packages) that had similar things.

So it's not something we can do immediately, but it's an interesting thought and something we should add to the 'be nice to have' list for any future development work on the forums.

[Pripyat Pony 2,608]

I used to admin a forum where users could choose to make their profiles private. This meant that nopony could PM them or comment on their status, or view their profile, save for forum staff who naturally could do so in all three and friends. We used to laugh at rulebreakers who would activate profile privacy in an attempt to avoid profile or PM warnings, cuz it's kinda obvious that staff would be able to overrule that. XD